A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Quote:

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272946)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The way forward might be to say that a ‘moral absolute’ is a code of conduct, which if broken, would in the most simple example and extreme scenario lead to the end of the human race.

Comments Frank?

Without thinking it through too deeply, igm...

...if the human race were completely exterminated...what difference would it make? If the entire planet were accidentally consumed by a black hole...what difference would it make?

Why would something as insignificant as the total extermination of this minor league system of planets circling a relatively insignificant sun in its entirety rise to the level of a moral absolute?

Unless...of course, this is the only place life exists...which we do not know.

My post was about a 'code of conduct' preventing the degeneration of society to the point where it can no longer be regarded as 'humane'. I'm not sure your reply addresses this... now that I've explained... do you have any comments or can you explain how your reply relates to my post?

I can't move forward with my line of thought if you're not on the same page as me.

My post was about a 'code of conduct' preventing the degeneration of society to the point where it can no longer be regarded as 'humane'.

The way forward might be to say that a ‘moral absolute’ is a code of conduct, which if broken, would in the most simple example and extreme scenario lead to the end of the human race.

Could this be a definition of a 'moral absolute' or not? If not then - even tenuously - I cannot continue.. obviously.

So, Frank can we take this as a hypothetical definition or not?

If someone... Max or someone wants to run with this definition instead then please let me know. Also if someone wants to say that it is not a possible definition of a 'moral absolute' then I'd be interested to hear your reasons.

igm wrote:

The way forward might be to say that a ‘moral absolute’ is a code of conduct, which if broken, would in the most simple example and extreme scenario lead to the end of the human race.

Could this be a definition of a 'moral absolute' or not? If not then - even tenuously - I cannot continue.. obviously.

So, Frank can we take this as a hypothetical definition or not?

If someone... Max or someone wants to run with this definition instead then please let me know. Also if someone wants to say that it is not a possible definition of a 'moral absolute' then I'd be interested to hear your reasons.

Absolutely, positively, without a question....NOT!

I hope that was definitive enough.

Your reply lacks an explanation Frank... please explain why it is not a definition?

Everyone should refrain from killing another human being for selfish reasons i.e. having a purely selfish motivation.

joefromchicago wrote:

I believe that morality can be understood through reason.

Just to clarify: do you mean this in a descriptive or prescriptive sense? "Descriptive" would mean that reason can make you understand which moral opinions people will hold.

"Prescriptive" would mean that reason can make you understand whether you ought to agree or disagree with those opinions yourself and act accordingly. As you know, the two are not the same.

It is important because I am trying to cover all bases of what it means for a moral code to be universally binding.

Irrespective of cultural and societal differences are the majority of values and desirables that remain the same, then what of the few values and desirables that vary across cultures and society. As such, decision making does not truly become an objective phenomenon in every case.

A central problem for the possibility of objectively valid epistemic principles has to do with explaining how we might know what they are. How could that be if our only means of access to them is via an argument where argument of which the conclusion asserts something about an inferential rule that is used in the very same argument?

To truely reason objectively,the self must be objective devoid from any spefic agent.

Then there is a matter of if the idea of a universal reason truly exist? How would one go about trying to prove that universal reason exists?

That is another great example of a moral code based on subjective values.

You are making the assumption that human life is important. This is (as we have pointed out) a subjective value.

Only humans feel that human life is valuable. A hungry tiger would have no moral problem with eating either (or both) of the last two humans, nor would any number of viruses, or weather events for that matter.

Even if you accept this subjective value on faith, there are still problems with this example. If both of these humans were male, would murder then be acceptable (since offspring is impossible)?

Subjective reality simply means that "reality" exists only in your mind. This is the only way it can be since the so-called "reality" is only one of perception. In other words, other than what you can perceive with all of your senses, there is absolutely no way to prove that anything objective actually exists out there. So the "world," or "reality" is subjective to your mind and your mind alone. In that sense the sense of objectivity exists only in your mind.
Even if there is a true objective reality, we can not prove that it exists from our subjective viewpoints, and thus we shouldn't assume that it exists. It's an unprovable assumption. I don't reject objective reality but I don't assume it either. Reality for me is that which I perceive.

If humans aren't important then of course there is no moral absolute but does that mean that ‘all’ life isn't important?

It would seem necessarily to follow from that, that all life is unimportant. That would mean that as Matt said your reasoning ‘seems’ eventually to lead to nihilism, unless you can show otherwise.

Human life is sacred to me.

So the point I'm trying to make is that for something to bind at a universal level, then one must have access to understand at a level of objective reality, in the most literal sense.

Prove to me that it is possible to break out of the rhetorical tautology and the real reason for the phenomena of truth can be independently derived from objective reality.

If you will convince me that, then I'll reject my notion that morality is subjective in the sense that relationships between principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong is compared from the subjective reality, and not the actual objective reality. That is what I'm referring to when I mentioned about the self that must be objective, devoid from any specific agent.